xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_url

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explicitly mentions a 240-second wait and that an incomplete job returns a job_id and points to a next query action. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies the asynchronous nature of the task.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action (submit task by note URL) and immediately covers the key constraints (wait time, job_id return). Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the available output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context: it states the input format, the asynchronous wait, and the follow-up query action. It does not explicitly name the polling tool (e.g., xhs_get_video_speech_text_job), but the existence of such a sibling and the mention of 'next query action' make the workflow clear. Minor gaps like error handling or idempotency advice are not critical given the annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter note_url is fully documented. The tool description repeats the same input formats (link, short link, share text) without adding new syntax details. With schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (submit a video speech-to-text task), the resource (Xiaohongshu video note via URL, short link, or share text), and distinguishes it from the sibling by_note_id variant. It also outlines the wait/response behavior, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context (it is a submission task triggered by a note URL), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the by_note_id sibling or exclude other tools. However, the naming and input type make the usage context obvious enough for an agent to infer the appropriate choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.